The lengthy and well-researched piece identifies four separate women who were solicited by Mr. Moore as teenagers. The youngest, Leigh Corfman, was just 14 when the then-32 year old DA began hitting on her:

Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out,” she remembers thinking. “Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.” Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did.

This party has been pandering to the most base and most evil of human instincts for decades, and we see the results.

Yes, of course there will be the required aint-it-awful cluck-clucking from embarrassed Republicans. That has about as much substance as the “prayers” they offer after each bloody massacre. It means NOTHING.

This is what happens when a party yields to the temptation to pander. A party with no values and no integrity that panders to the worst instincts of a suffering nation ends up with politicians who have no values, no integrity, and who pander to the worst instincts of their colleagues.

The rush by right wing politicians and so called Christians to defend this man, despite these allegations, is almost as bad as his continued candidacy itself. Jeff Ziegler is another piece of human garbage who had the audacity to compare this child molestor to the Holy Family. Hannity cited some dumb biblical allusion to David and absurdly claimed this was consensual-a legal impossibility no based on their ages.

Moore isn’t a hypocrite though-these are the consistent actions of a man who thinks woman are property instead of people. They are just truly deplorable as is anyone who votes for him after today’s revelations. His racism was pretty disqualifying before this came out. Dems should run as many ads as possible with the KKK being juxtaposed with racist stuff More has said.

It isn’t just that vermin like Mr. Moore exist (men like this have always existed), it is that the GOP nominates them, supports them, defends them and excuses them. We rightly threatened Roman Catholic clergy who did such things with jail We rightly excoriated the Roman Catholic power structure that spread that cancer.

We must do the same with the GOP.

I believe that Americans across the board (outside of Alabama) are nauseated and disgusted by not only the perpetrators, but perhaps even more so by the spineless cowards who enable them. The embrace of scum like Roy Moore and Donald Trump by the GOP hands Democrats a powerful political weapon, because Americans of ALL groups abhor such behavior.

We must not be shy about shining a spotlight on these enablers and collaborators. We must follow the venerable journalistic directive — “Show, don’t tell”.

I think we can be critically loyal of our own team without being blind to the reality that their team has been allowed to be hijacked by extremists and evil individuals because of how it’s warped politics. If you honestly believe that your God or faith will be threatened by progressive policies, you’ll justify any kind of moral compromise with evil to stop that threat. If your epistemology insists that abortion is a second Holocaust, or gay marriage will invite literal wrath upon than country, than any child molester is still preferable to that alternative.

Hannity and other enablers of Moore were making the same kind of arguments radical Muslims do to forgive terrorism or pedophilia among their own clergy. American Christianity is in desperate need of another reformation or awakening by its women, sexual minorities, and adherents of color to really become an oasis of justice and redemption again and not the twisted form that always seems to define it.

John Kelly may feel there is nothing aacred anymore, by Jeff Zieglers comments defending Moore’s actions were a new low for me. Especially as a Catholic with the reverence we have for the Holy Family and the hard work laity and many clergy we have had to do to cleanse our church from pedophilia. In many ways it’s worse than Cardinal Law. He covered up the crimes to save face and money, but fundamentally knew they were wrong. That’s why it was so heinous, a sin of omission. These people don’t even have that compunction anymore. They are redefining it as normal-and that’s incredibly disgusting and dangerous.

Bill Clinton for all his flaws didn’t rape or molest children. His confirmed inappropriate behavior was consenI do think we should take a second look at his harassment charges since his accusers were not taken as seriously as they should’ve been at the time. That said, if the evidence for assault or rape was insufficient for an unscrupulous prosecutor like Ken Starr to press charges, it’s likelier than not they aren’t real.

Bill Clinton, for all his flaws? didn’t rape or molest children. His confirmed inappropriate behavior was consensual and with adults. I think we ought to take a second look at whether his work environment was toxic and whether he sexually harassed anyone. That said, if the evidence for more serious charges was insufficient even for an unscrupulous prosecutor like Ken Starr, it’s likelier than not he didn’t commit assault. He was not someone who behaved appropriately toward woman, but he was not a criminal either.

Sexual abuse of children is worse, but sexual predation is sexual predation.

Clinton was accused of rape, sexual assault, and harassment by three women collectively. All were dismissed as products of a right-wing media attack – the exact same defense Moore is now using against these allegations – and discredited by Democrats using the “nuts and sluts” approach.

I think that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. I think Donald Trump is a sexual predator. I think Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator. I think Louis C.K. is a sexual predator.

The issue is whether you believe women, especially groups of women, telling stories of assault, or you don’t because the accused is on your team.

His confirmed inappropriate behavior was consensual and with adults.

If you require that “confirmed” modifier for Clinton, why write what you have about Moore?

I don’t disagree with your criticism about Clinton. I think the Democrats smeared women who had a right to be heard instead of dismissed. I totally agree with that and have made that point here before. The difference is that Clinton was already investigated, extensively, for criminal sexual behavior and found innocent by the United States Senate, criminal. and civil courts. He was also never prosecuted for those crimes after he left the White House. I agreee those cases should be reopened or rexxamined in light of the Weinstein Effect. That’s a valid point. I

I think Moore is on another level since he is harming minors. This is closer to what Spacey or Weinstein did, but maybe even worse. Either way, Moore has no business being a United States Senator. His cancer is unique to the political right, even before these latest allegations.

I wouldn’t characterize Clinton’s supposed exoneration as you do. Certain things were not prosecuted in appropriate venues (state courts) or under appropriate statutes of limitation, and there are numerous reasons why survivors wouldn’t pursue charges against a powerful opponent. The “he said, she said” dynamic of most sexual assaults is very difficult.

I just bring it up because of the “our guy” effects that happen and that Democrats also need to look at their own house on these things.

But yes, Moore is worse. For me, these new allegations just barely make Moore worse as a human and candidate for Senate given how disgusting and awful everything about him and his career has been. It’s adding a pile of shit to an otherwise mountain of shit.

This episode absolutely shows the pathology of the modern GOP, though. ONLY sexual abuse of children could be the line, or worse, that even this is not a line too far.

That these garbage humans in the Alabama GOP don’t even have the decency to say “Moore is unacceptable to me, but I can also not support a Democrat” says everything.

I think that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator. I think Donald Trump is a sexual predator. I think Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator. I think Louis C.K. is a sexual predator.

That’s a rather general reading of the word ‘predator’. Is that to become the new catchall in the socio-political-gender-negotiation terrain as ‘terrorist’ is in the solely political realm…?

The issue is whether you believe women, especially groups of women, telling stories of assault, or you don’t because the accused is on your team.

One of the reasons to believe women regarding the accusations they may make about Trump and Weinstein is that the accusations fit, rather neatly, into what public demonstrations of the makeup of their ‘character’ we have. It’s not a real stretch to believe that a bully will sexually assault, even rape, a woman. Everything written about about Weinstein, before the accusations, was about how overbearing he is, in about every aspect of his life and business. Everything written about Trump, prior to the ‘access hollywood’ release displays a similar callousness and bullying attitude and, in particular, against women. Or, put another way, no one was all that shocked.

One of the reasons to discount accusations against Bill Clinton is the makeup of his ‘character,’ some of which involves marrying a strong woman and easily placing strong women in positions of power. He always seemed to me a Lothario, no doubt, but this is apposite, only, to social norms and not to any use of physical force against a women in contravention of her will. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It just means deliberate forceful rape is out of keeping with his character and I require more than accusations (especially in the context of the many, many demonstrably false accusations –of a non-sexual nature– made against Bill and Hillary Clinton over the years.)

The accusations against Louis C.K. (so far) just seems like Louis C.K. is a pathetic schmuck…. and certainly inappropriate, but hardly ‘predatory.’ I know the women felt he abused their trust — and he did — but I’d like to know if any of them, at any time, felt in any real danger? If they did, then he is a predator who probably needs jail time. If they didn’t, he’s just a sick man who needs help.

I apply the term predator to anyone who regularly engages in behavior of assault and harassment of a sexual nature – so all of these men absolutely fit that definition.

I don’t know how we can talk about it at all if we can’t differentiate behavior, none of which I condone but only some of which I would punish.

One of the reasons to believe women when they accuse someone of sexual assault is because they are women claiming sexual assault. There’s really not much more to it.

One of the things about women being equal is that they are equal. They can be as mendacious and callous as men can be… or do you dispute that? That would be a tidy trick.

Dismissing the claims and thinking the man is merely a “Lothario” is reflective of the culture that perpetuates these activities.

I don’t know that I was ‘dismissing’ anything. I’m only saying a Lothario is different from a rapist. I don’t condone either but there is no legal statute for punishing someone for being a Lothario. And I think someone who is a Lothario is not likely to be a rapist. And I think someone who is a rapist wouldn’t see the point of being a Lothario…

I believe a lot of what the women said. What we’re arguing about is your catch-all categorization of the wide range of behaviours they describe as ‘predatory.’

All of the activity is predatory. Some are rapists, some are harassers. All are predators. All of the activity is traumatic for the survivor. All of the activity (yes, including Louis C.K.’s) fills the survivor with fear and shame. “That’s not as bad as that” or “at least she wasn’t really hurt” are the types of excuses that men need to deal with if this culture is ever going to change.

Your desire to minimize some behavior relative to others is the problem.

All of the activity is predatory. Some are rapists, some are harassers. All are predators. All of the activity is traumatic for the survivor. All of the activity (yes, including Louis C.K.’s) fills the survivor with fear and shame. “That’s not as bad as that” or “at least she wasn’t really hurt” are the types of excuses that men need to deal with if this culture is ever going to change.

Ok. I think we’ve skidded a little on the debate. You put Clinton, Weinstein, Trump and Louis C.K. all under one umbrella, that of ‘sexual predator.’ The word ‘predator’ has a meaning and context. A wolf is predator. A dog is not. Both could hurt you. Does it minimize the byte of the dog to say it’s not the bite of the wolf?

But now, after I disagreed with that characterization, you’re using the victims context (very little of which I have disputed) as the sole metric for arbitrating… but this very diary is entitled “By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them,” which invites a differentiation (“know them”) by the deeds involved of ‘them’ (the men) and not the others (the female victims). What I know about Harvey Weinstein makes the charge of rape very credible. What I know about Bill Clinton makes the charge of rape not very credible. Is it minimizing to say he’s a Lothario? Only to the extent that being a Lothario, as noted previously, has not statutory prohibition. Would I like him not to be a Lothario? Yes. For his sake and the sake of his wife, whom I’ve come to respect a great deal more in the past year….

The phrase, ‘by their fruits… ‘ is from Christian Scripture: Various translations have it as ‘by their deeds…” or “by their acts…” Jesus says this specifically in the context of NOT JUDGING: you will know people by the things they do… not by what people say about them… or what you want to believe about them already, (which is what I thought you were getting at by your comments about not placing the same standards towards those on ‘our team.’ )

And, in applying Jesus’ actual standard to the debate I derived that Clinton, Weinstein, Trump and Louis C.K do not belong under the one rubric of ‘predator.’ This is apart from the shame, trauma and hurt all the women surely felt.

Your desire to minimize some behavior relative to others is the problem.

I desire to differentiate. To the extent that that this is going to be ranked (some of it is loathsome but legal and some of it is flatly illegal) why is that my fault?

And I think that the Louis C.K. thing may really be mental illness. Is that minimizing? I don’t know. I think the women involved must have feel deeply uncomfortable and shame as you say above…. but that may be a case of them (and you) maximizing — rather than me minimizing — That is to say, bringing to bear the entire sweep of female experience (and I recognize their right, perhaps even the moral imperative, to do so) But I’m not sure he’s entirely in control of his actions. Maybe he is. But his deeds, in keeping with that theme, seem without clear rationality.

Some of us are able to tell the difference between 31 year old man attempting to seduce a 14 year old (and at least three others that we know of) and a man who accepts the solicitation of grown woman. Some of us are not.

Your attempt to equate Roy Moore to Bill Clinton epitomizes the wrong-headedness of the current Democratic Party circular firing squad.

I’m gonna say that Juanita Broaddrick, at least, is a credible accuser. I did not give her due attention at the time. And that charge was rape.

Not to follow around whatabouts, but I don’t think a reconsideration of the Clinton response in the 1990’s is out of bounds, at all. Weinstein was the meal ticket for a lot of people. Clinton was the meal ticket for a lot of people. Moore is the AL GOP’s meal ticket. That’s how this stuff works.

For me the problem with Broaddrick was VRWC fatigue, plus if it were a serious criminal allegation it should have been pursued criminally and it was not. By the time she spoke up my attitude was sure, why not? Clinton had been accused by his enemies of every felony in the book including drug trafficking and murder, so might as well add rape to complete the rap sheet:(

“During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies,” she said. “Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family’s privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.”

or is she lying now?

Did Ms. Broaddrick increase or decrease her credibility when she accepted Mr. Trump’s invitation to help his campaign (while looking to create distractions from his bus tape)?

Yes, I DO believe the reporting from Washington Post of Mr. Moore’s accusers, because that reporting was extensive, neither the witnesses nor the victims were paid or otherwise rewarded for their statements, and reporting of the episodes has the clear ring of truth.

No, I do NOT believe the accusers of Mr. Clinton because they came forward only when money was at stake (or they were coerced by Mr. Starr and his paid enforcers), their statements conflict with their earlier sworn testimony (in the case of Ms. Broaddrick), and they have spent a lifetime attempting to profit in one way or another from their schtick (see Paula Jones).

Regarding “reconsideration”, are we also going to “reconsider” favorite son JFK? After all, the allegations about his philandering make a saint of Bill Clinton. What about LBJ? He, too, was notorious for his voracious sexual appetite. Sites like this say about LBJ:

The affair continued until the late 1940s. But it was not Johnson’s last. He once bragged that he’d “had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose.” When Johnson became President, he continued to cheat on his wife, even in the White House. Once, after Lady Bird walked in on her husband having sex with one of his secretaries on a sofa in the Oval Office, an angry Johnson ordered the Secret Service to install a buzzer system to alert the President whenever his wife was close by. This incident occurred just months after he took office. A former Secret Service agent said, “if we saw Lady Bird heading for the elevator or stairs, we were to ring the buzzer.”

Bill Clinton was never even ACCUSED of soliciting sex from a 14 year old. Their is no evidence of such conduct by JFK nor LBJ.

In my view, this entire narrative is perniciously wrong. Juanita Broaddrick is NOT credible. Paula Jones is NOT credible. Bill Clinton had a consensual affair, including oral sex, with Monica Lewinsky. That is not remotely comparable to the credible reporting from the WaPo.

These are credible reports of Roy Moore soliciting not just one, but several teenagers. Many of his supporters don’t even bother to deny them, they say “so what”. For example, the NYTimes reports that Jim Zeigler — Alabama state auditor and a “longtime supporter” said this (emphasis mine):

Others in Alabama shrugged at the allegations. “There’s nothing to see here,” said Jim Zeigler, the state auditor and a longtime supporter of Mr. Moore. “Single man, early 30s, never been married, dating teenage girls. Never been married and he liked younger girls. According to The Washington Post account he never had sexual intercourse with any of them.”

How many Democratic candidates base their public persona on flouting their “morality”, putting religious icons in courtrooms, and so on? None. We don’t do that, and the GOP DOES do that.

There are NO Democrats who are remotely comparable to Mr. Moore. None.

Sorry, guys, but this claims to be a reality-based blog. The reality is that the GOP does these abhorrent things and the Democrats do not.

And by “these abhorrent things”, I mean these bible-thumping caricatures of “morality”, where the candidate wraps his or her bigotry in God-talk and claims divine endorsement of their succession of outrages.

Are you willing to concede that some women DO attack men (for various reasons) untruthfully? Are you really going to argue that Paula Jones is a credible witness?

Does it MATTER to you whether or not an accuser is actually telling the TRUTH or not?

What YOU are saying is one of the reasons why our justice system is so completely broken when it comes to matters like this. One inconvenient truth is that some men do awful, terrible things to innocent victims. Another inconvenient truth is that powerful people are often themselves the victims of totally fabricated claims from unscrupulous liars.

Can I remind you that the vicious and utterly unsupported accusations of Ms. Jones came in the context of a cabal of cheaters, philanderers, and liars attempting to impeach a popular president based on false claims of the same? Can I remind you that ALL of the GOP leadership involved with the attacks on Mr. Clinton were either forced to resign or were PROSECUTED for criminal actions related to their own illegal acts?

Your attempt to turn Bill Clinton into a sex predator is disgusting. Your attempt to exploit genuine victims of actual sex predators is even more revolting.

A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy and something you are doing here, it seems. Women accuse Republicans of boorish behavior and you assume the mantle with zeal……Women accuse Democrat of boorish behavior and well……there’s two sides to every story….this is a political which hunt……yeah Tom, we get it.

Funny how some anonymous participants who have never met me, don’t bother to actually respond to what I actually write or simply lie about it (along with everything else) nevertheless claim to know who I am.

I think the Moore problem goes deeper than the Weinstein effect of powerful men abusing women and children. It goes to the heart of a fundamentalist Christianity that insists that women be submissive to their husbands and exhalts in the lordship of the male head over his household. It’s deeply embedded in Protestant fundamentalism, and it’s no accident Joseph Smith took it to its logical end by allowing for polygamy as the Old Testament did.

One of my close friends is a former Mormon, who along with her wife, are some of the most devout and involved churchgoers I know. She talks about how the inferiority of woman was drilled into her from the earliest of ages at religious school. Their current parish (First UU Evanston) is full of people who escaped fundamentalist religious traditions.

Obviously your UCC, Tom’s TEC, and my TEC approach to an RCC/UMC hybrid are not like that. Many denominations are. My sister in law is fascinated by ex-Amish, ex-FLDS, and now ex-Hasidic narratives that are strikingly similar in how poorly women and girls are treated at all ages and all levels by these faiths. Fundamentalist Islam is obviously just as bad. So the divide between secular/liberal/moderate approaches to religion and the fundamentalist approach is a massive one in our culture. One that is realigning our churches along similarly polarized lines as our politics. For the worse I’m afraid.

I hope that this scandal wrecks Moore’s campaign. But to suggest that any of this proves that our side is better than their side is stupid beyond belief. It’s the political version of Louis CK’s seduction technique.

I don’t see myself saying our side is better-plenty of corruption and predation to go around-but that their sides predation comes from their warped ideology towards women. I mean, Hannity is mainstreaming the Rulon Jeffs defense. If that’s not crossing the Rubicon to somewhere terrifying, I don’t know what is. I think we can have this conversation separate from the Weinstein stuff. Weinstein was a rich powerful asshole with a problem. Moore and his enablers believe they are endowed by God to behave this way. That’s a trickier thing to police against with better policy.

I guess you find it “stupid beyond belief” to assert that our side does not defend those who attempt to rape (yes, that’s what this was given the age of the victim) 14 year old girls or body-slam reporters.

Stupid or not, I condemn the GOP for its wanton, cowardly, and self-serving amorality and the disgusting degradation of everything Americas hold dear that result.

I’m talking about you, Tom,more than “our side”. You’re the one who was using all the same excuses that Roy Moore’s defenders are using now. Check your own comments about what Gerry Studds was doing at about the same time Roy Moore was committing his crimes.

There is a difference between a 17 year old and 14 year old. There is a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. I don’t remember myself or any other Democrat arguing that there was nothing wrong with what Mr. Studds did. He was, after all, censured for his behavior. Nevertheless, it was NOT criminal. It was not rape. It was NOT done to a 14 year old. It was NOT part of a pattern of so many that he can’t recall them all.

I think your effort to argue that the Democrats are as bad as the GOP is “stupid beyond belief”. I think your suggestion that Gerry Studds is comparable to Roy Moore is an insult to Gerry Studds and is an outrageously dishonest — flirting with homophobic — lie.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t know who “Louis CK” is, I have not read the gossip about what he did or did not do, nor do I intend to. If he committed crimes then he should be prosecuted for them. Your reference to him is therefore lost on me.

If the media were half as the passionate about everything ELSE the GOP is doing to destroy America as they are about sex, then I doubt that we’d be in today’s governmental crisis.

@ Christopher: Just to be clear about consent — NONE of Mr. Moore’s victims consented. NONE. We already dragged Gerry Studds and Daniel Crane through the mud on another thread. In each of those cases, the interns TESTIFIED that the sexual behavior was consensual. Each was over the age of consent. Neither representative was ever charged with any crime. In the case of Mr. Studds, the anonymous intern has chosen to be remain anonymous.

Mr. Crane was a Republican. Mr. Studds was a Democrat. I made the same argument for each (hence the lie implied by the above third point “What was the political affiliation of either?”).

Both Mr. Crane and Mr. Studds were dragged into that similarly distasteful exchange because bob-gardner (who we’re responding to now) missed the sarcasm of a comment from mark-bail. That thread, as you recall, was a diatribe that conflated Bill Clinton and John Edwards with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. That linkage was indefensible then and remains so now. The sarcastic comment of mark-bail was to add Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Jim McGreevey, Gary Condit, Ted Kennedy, RFK, JFK, FDR, and Barney Frank. to the list. He missed LBJ.

The intended sarcasm was missed by bob-gardner, who couldn’t resist the temptation to smear Gerry Studds, explicitly connecting him to Barney Frank.

I absolutely ask the first two. The third is an observation after the fact.

In fact, the third question I ask is missing from your summary:

Was the behavior consensual?

Propositioning a 14 year old is different from propositioning a 17 year old, especially in Alabama — the legal age of consent there is 16. Ms. Corfman was not legally competent to give her consent.

In our rush to smear Democrats, we seem to forget that the behavior of Mr. Studds happened once and resulted in his censure. Mr. Studds did not make his morality and his religion the centerpiece of his public career during the intervening years.

The WaPo piece cited in the threadstarter is meticulously well-sourced, and reports a pattern of behavior on the part of Mr. Moore. Various aspects of the story have since been confirmed by multiple other sources. The GOP continues to stand by their man, or at least make sure that their public statements leave LOTS of wiggle room.

It is the politics of Mr. Moore that offend the GOP, not his behavior.

Some of us are able to see that, and some of us are willing to say that. Some of us are not.

Here are some quotes from Tom,one month ago.
“So we’re talking about something that -happened more than 30 years ago. ..
-The voters didn’t care about it. (Mr Studds was re-elected multiple times. )”
“It was more than 30 years ago,
Bob. ”
“You assume the worst. Innocent until proven guilty is another important foundation stone of American culture. ”
“I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Do you? ”
There is more. All things that Roy Moore’s defenders can also say.
Unbelievably stupid.

I think there has been a generational shift in how these cases are being reported and how victims are reacting. I absolutely believe that it could be possible that Juanita Broderick lied under oath rather than admit what she had been through. Rose McGowan took a settlement and Asia Argento admitted to consensual sex after the initial take later on in her relationship to Weinstein. I don’t think either of these facts undermines their credibility or their courage, but it certainly would’ve a decade ago.

The accusers against Clinton operated in a different time and climate when these issues were not treated with the seriousness they deserve. Steinem and other feminist allies of the Clinton’s did slut shame and tarnish these women’s reputations and that was wrong. Monica Lewinsky was made into a punchline and her promising career in public policy was ended. Despite the fact that she was arguably a vulnerable victim of a powerful employers advances. In the least, she was punished far more than the President for their error in judgment.

That some of the accusers at the time may have made strategic alliances with Republicans to get their stories heard may have been a reality of the era. I am not saying Clinton is guilty. I am saying it is hypocritical to attack his accusers and rush to his defense while essentially attacking the GOP for doing the same thing. I’m with Charley-these cases deserve a second hearing in light of our new reality. I’m also with many others who express skepticism over the more sordid charges since Ken Starr had unlimited resources and motivation to find something and did not.

A lot of these cases come down to he said she said and in the past it was always the case to believe the man and dismiss the women. After Weinstein that will not happen again. That means we should treat the women who accused Clinton as seriously as we would any other woman coming forward against any other public figure. That doesn’t mean we presume guilt, but it also means we shouldn’t presume innocence either.

Nevertheless, the accusations against Bill Clinton were never in the same league as the credible accounts of what Roy Moore did.

The Democratic Party did NOT spend the last thirty years wrapping themselves in “God” and “Country”. Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were ringleaders in the attempted political assassination of Bill Clinton, each filled the media with sanctimonious nonsense about marriage and fidelity, and each was doing far worse things to their wives.

Dennis Hastert, the Mr. Clean on the white horse who allegedly rescued the GOP from their hypocrisy, turns out to himself be a criminal abuser.

Cardinal Bernard Law claimed, as the clergy sex abuse scandal, something to the effect that “we know things now we didn’t know then”. As if priests having sex with 13 year old altar boys was EVER ok.

I reject the “generational shift” argument. Just as Mr. Law’s claim was a self-serving rationalization, so to is the “generational change” argument. What Roy Moore did in 1979 was immoral and illegal in 1979, and would be the same today. What Bill Clinton’s accusers did in the 1990s was just as tawdry and corrupt as a similarly dishonest accuser would be today.

I certainly hope that our “generational shift” preserves the notion that men and women are innocent until proven guilty.

The behavior of the GOP of the 1990s is no different from its behavior today — lie loudly about “immoral” Democrats in public, while practice even worse abuses in private.

Nope. The GOP was hypocritical and immoral then and it is immoral and hypocritical now. The GOP chose to thump the bible, it is neither “stupic” nor “generational” to insist that the party be judged by the standard it chose.

You are still completely misreading what happened to Monica Lewinsky. She was a victim of Linda Tripp, not Bill Clinton, and I for one have never used the times were different defense since it wasn’t that long ago (and post Anita Hill, which is where I would mark the turning point) and I still see Clinton in a very different light that some of the others.

Do you really want to get into that? Studds went further physically than the kisses,groping, and partial undressing that Moore is currently accused of. There was sworn testimony against Studds, none yet against Moore. Moore was an older man. Studds was an older man who also was in an unequal power relationship with his victim.
Both were pretty bad. The point is not which is worse, but whether the actions of either can be spun into a blanket condemnation of anyone’s politics.
I say it can’t. Tom’s self righteous preening and name calling don’t reflect on anyone but himself.

The intern that Mr. Studds had consensual sex with was 17. There is a difference between a 14 year old and a 17 year old, a difference that law and culture have long respected.

It is interesting that bob-gardner yet again trashes Mr. Studds by name and says nothing about Daniel Crane, censured in the same congressional action as Mr. Studds. The intern that Mr. Crane had consensual sex was also 17 — again, very different from the 14 year old who was the target of Mr. Moore’s alleged acts.

So in this thread, just as in the original smear, it seems that bob-gardner was (and is) far more offended by the homosexuality of the episode with Mr. Studds than by the episode itself. No mention by bob-gardner AT ALL, here or in the other thread, of Mr. Crane.

It certainly appears consensual sex involving a 17 year old young man is far more upsetting to bob-gardner than consensual sex involving a 17 year old young women.

I categorically reject the argument that attempted sex with a 14 year old is indistinguishable from consensual sex with a 17 year old (never mind Monica Lewinsky).

I categorically reject the argument that a political party that makes its “morality” a foundation stone of its campaigning can’t be judged by the standards it sets for itself.

I invite anyone here to name a single Democratic candidate for national office who has made his or her religious beliefs and personal (claimed) morality a centerpiece of their public persona. Even one.

Roy Moore is most certainly not the first (see James Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Herman Caine, et al) and will not be the last to campaign this way. It has been a mainstay of GOP politics for decades.

The behavior of a party that chooses to define ITSELF by it’s morality is, in my view, fair game when the candidates of that party who are most outspoken in this regard are revealed to be child sex predators.

As Christopher asks upthread — “How do you not get that Moore is miles worse than Studds?” Indeed.

It is quite specific and has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve written about the accusers of Bill Clinton. Although it is a very old strategy, it came to public awareness after the Anita Hill testimony against Clarence Thomas.

There are two parts: an attack on the accuser’s mental or emotional state, and an attempt to paint the accuser as promiscuous. At no time have I ever characterized any of Bill Clinton’s accusers in this way.

When you write that I “swallow the whole nuts and sluts defense”, you libel me.

Your defense of Clinton and Studds demonstrates that you 1. Don’t care about abuse if it’s perpetrated by people you like, and 2. Don’t understand a damn thing about power dynamics.

Interesting. So you join bob-gardner in ignoring the behavior of Daniel Crane. It seems to me you don’t like Bill Clinton and didn’t like Gerry Studds. As I wrote upthread, your belief that these men were “sex predators” is determining your view of their accusers.

You don’t know a damn thing about my understanding of “power dynamics”, nor does your commentary reflect any understanding of actual sexual dynamics among actual people.

You are so busy repeating your assertions about Mr. Clinton, Mr. Studds, and me that you ignore the point of this exercise:

The GOP makes its peculiar, patriarchal, and completely sexist “religious” moral standard the center of its brand in a way that the Democratic Party has never done.

Are you paying any attention AT ALL to what the GOP is doing even now, as we speak? Your assertions about “power dynamics” ring exceedingly hollow.

I’m saying Bill Clinton is a sexual predator based on the many credible and consistent accusations over 30+ years and the activities he lied about under oath.

It doesn’t look that way to me. It looks to me as though you are, in fact, saying Bill Clinton is a sexual predator base on the many headlines and hit pieces published and broadcast by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and similar sensationalist outlets. It looks to me as though you join JTM and his version of independent voters who “look at the surface, the headlines” — and stop there.

So I want you to be specific about Bill Clinton’s accusers. Here are the women who have accused Bill Clinton of being a sex predator:

– Paula Jones
– Kathleen Willey
– Joanna Broaddrick

You claim these have been making “credible and consistent accusations over 30+ years. I’ve already published contemporary accounts, published in places like The Nation, where Kathleen Willey’s accusations were shown to be rubbish. Ken Starr didn’t use them because there was compelling evidence, available to him and to the House impeachment committee, that she was lying.

So you’re down to to Paula Jones and Joanna Broaddrick.

I invite you to post accounts from reputable sources that support your assertion that either has been making “credible and consistent accusations over 30+ years”.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but 1998 was less than twenty years ago, and until 1998 she had nothing negative to say about Mr. Clinton.

…
3. I met President Clinton more than twenty years ago through family friends. Our introduction was not arranged or facilitated, in any way, by the Arkansas State Police. I have never been an Arkansas state employee or a federal employee. I have never discussed with Mr. Clinton the possibility of state or federal employment nor has he offered me any such position. I have had no further relations with him for the past (15) years.

4. During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family’s privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.

5. I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations advanced by Paula Corbin Jones or which could lead to admissible evidence in her case. Specifically, I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton, any discussion offer or provision of state or federal employment or advancement in exchange for sexual conduct, or any use of state troopers to procure women for sex. Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney’s fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. For these reasons, I have asked my attorney to advise Ms. Jones’s counsel that there is no truth to the rumors they are pursuing and to provide her counsel with this sworn affidavit.

With all due regard to “power dynamics”, this affidavit is emphatic about several things:

1. It says, emphatically, that Bill Clinton did not make unwelcome sexual advances. It says, point blank, that “these allegations are untrue”.

2. It says, emphatically, that Paula Jones is lying.

I encourage you to offer whatever you like regarding the credibility of Paula Jones. I remind you that absolutely NONE of the allegations repeatedly made by Ms. Jones have been confirmed by anyone except rabid attackers of Bill Clinton.

But hey … if you want to offer up Paula Jones as your “credible accuser”, go for it. By all means, let’s examine what Ms. Jones has been doing during your claimed “30+ year” period. If you want to go there, I’m game.

You are mistaken about the “nuts and sluts” defense. You calling Jones venal, who will do anything for money, and bringing up the nude photos is exactly what that type of smearing process involves. It’s not libel if you’re plainly doing it.

Daniel Crane should have been removed from office. What of it? I don’t care if it’s a same-sex relationship or a Republican,

You’ve maintained that what Studds did or what Clinton did (at least with Lewinsky) were normal relationships – so yeah, I’m inferring you don’t understand power dynamics because you are making that clear.

I’m not ignoring what the GOP is doing or what they are. They are scum and doing something with Moore that ranks amongst the all-time most despicable acts in politics.

BUT, even though the GOP is worse, that does not make Democrats necessarily good, especially when we won’t address sexual abuse on our side.

There’s actually more women than that.

Also Broaddrick – “I don’t want to relive it . . . You can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it.”

Well, “venal” is a different word describing a different trait than either “nut” or “slut”.

Your comment enlarges the scope of “nuts and sluts” to make it meaningless. The phrase was not intended to apply to any attempt to demonstrate the absence of credibility of a witness.

It was, instead, created to address two specific lines of attack that are each groundless.

Do you really deny that Paula Jones is venal? Really? I, of course, do not deny calling her venal — her behavior exemplifies venality. I use “libel” to describe your comment because you turn “nuts and sluts” upside down and inside out.

A witness who testifies what he or she is paid to testify is not credible. An “expert witness” in a civil trial who testified that a given substance was perfectly safe in one trial, and subsequently testified that the same substance was toxic and hazardous in a subsequent trial — while paid by a different client — is not a credible witness, regardless of gender. It is not a “smear” to show the conflicting testimony. In fact, an attorney who FAILED to show that conflicting testimony would be derelict to NOT show the conflict.

I didn’t chose the nude photo example because of its nudity (I don’t care), I chose it because Ms. Jones first tried to get the photos suppressed and then, after being paid, eagerly sat for more photos. That is what “venal” means.

Oh, and regarding “the activities he lied about under oath” … he was talking about oral sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Ms. Lewinsky has NEVER accused Mr. Clinton of sexually harassing her. Her testimony was coerced by Ken Starr with evidence by her “friend” (who was actually her betrayer) Linda Tripp. If it’s abuse of power we want to talk about, Ms. Lewinsky herself has long argued that it was Mr. Starr who abused his power and made her life miserable.

The specific question Mr. Clinton responded to was a question about a specific list of sexual activities. He responded, accurately, that he had not performed any of those activities with Monica Lewinsky. The list did not include oral sex.

Bill Clinton admitted that he gave “false answers”, and did not admit to lying. I know this is hard to believe, but under the law there IS a difference.

From the piece:

His lawyer, David Kendall, told reporters that Clinton “did not lie. We have not admitted that he lied, and he did not do so today. He has conceded that he tried to conceal the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.”

As part of the deal, Clinton agreed to pay a $25,000 fine and gave up his right to ask the government to fund his enormous court costs.

“The nation’s interests have been served and, therefore, I decline prosecution,” [independent counsel Robert] Ray told reporters. “This matter is now concluded. May history and the American people judge that it has been concluded justly.”
…
Ray’s chances of securing an indictment – let alone a conviction – from a Washington jury were widely considered slim to none.
…
The woman at the center of the scandal [Monica Lewsinsy] cheered.

“I was terrified I would have to testify yet again, and I am grateful this sword of Damocles that was hanging over me has finally been removed,” Lewinsky said.

In short, the “activities he lied about under oath” had NOTHING TO DO with sex harassment. He denied having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky — a consenting adult who initiated the affair, willing pursued it, who was coerced into testifying, and who has never accused Mr. Clinton since then of abusing her.

You do Monica Lewinsky a disservice by grouping her with Paula Jones. You do ALL women a disservice by claiming that Monica Lewinsky was abused or was a victim of anyone except Ken Starr.

What Monica Lewinsky did with Bill Clinton was assert her sexual agency. There is no crime in that and she was not a victim in that behavior.

I have spent time with Bill Clinton. Anybody who has spent time with him knows he was, at least in the past, a sexual predator. His targets were never in my experience minors and the objects of his attention were often willing but there are fine lines here. My guess is that he has chilled out since then. People like STom have no clue about his behavior.

The reason I compared Tom’s post to Louis CK is this. Repeatedly Tom invites us to witness his posing while he takes pleasure in his own moral superiority. It really should stop.
I hope Roy Moore loses because of this scandal. He would be loathesome even if none of the events that were reported last week never happened. But if the stories turn out to be true, he would be loathesome even if his politics were as praiseworthy as the politics of Gerry Studds.
As it happens, the actions of the two men are very similar. Both were in their 30’s when they dated or made passes to several 17 year olds. Both are accused of more serious things. Moore is accused of molesting a 14 year old, and Studds had repeated sex with a 17 year old subordinate, after getting him drunk.
The people who defend Moore are using some pretty bizarre arguments, and he may still be sent to Congress. On the other hand, people sent Studds back to Congress multiple times, even though the accusations against him were undisputed.
Progressives as well as bible thumpers have tolerated sexual
miscreants of all kinds, and been hypocritical about it. But I think Tom, even though we agree on a lot of things politically, is on his way to becoming the purest hypocrite of all.

This is garbage. Who is giving Crane a pass? None of the comments have even the slightest whiff of homophobia.

Tom, you’re in the territory of saying a teacher sleeping with a high school student is totally fine as long as the student is above the age of consent in that state. That you don’t see a problem with that is inexcusable.

I didn’t say that I don’t see a problem with that. I said that it is different from what Roy Moore apparently made a habit of. I said that Gerry Studds didn’t make his morality the center of his persona.

I said that bob-gardner is still talking about Gerry Studds and is silent about Daniel Crane. I said that bob-gardner brought Gerry Studds into the conversation after admitting that Barney Frank was never accused of anything except a poor choice of lovers.

The most apparent similarity between Barney Frank and Gerry Studds is that each is openly gay. The difference between Gerry Studds and Daniel Crane is that the former is gay and the latter hetero.

The fact that the late Gerry Studds is dragged into this swamp — by name — so repeatedly, while Mr. Crane gets a pass is the homophobia. Funny how Gerry Studds comes up over and over, while Daniel Crane is only acknowledged after my reminder that he did the same thing.

You’ve repeatedly dismissed the idea that there are any problems with relationships between those above the age of consent, regardless of their relationship to each other.

It doesn’t matter that Studds didn’t make morality the center of his persona. He’s still a sexual abuser. So what if he’s not a sexual abuser AND a hypocrite.

Studds is mentioned because he is a Democrat who has been defended, when he should have been shunned. The D next to the name is the big issue, not that he is gay. It’s an example of how some on this site, like you and Christopher, will defend Democrats regardless of the action.

Just because what Republicans do is worse does not make Democrats good. The fact that many don’t see that is why the Democratic Party continues to have a very large swamp component – albeit not as large as the full, festering morass that is the Republican Party.

If we want to be the better party, we have to be better. Defending sexual predators in our ranks does not make us so.

Scummy comment STom. Gerry was a friendly partner (I don’t count you as a friend unless you have had dinner at my home and he never did) and his behavior was reprehensible but he owned it and nobody tries to explain it away, even while we honor his amazing work. OTOH, Clinton refuses to own his predatory behavior and his politics SUCKED. Any comparison is to Clinton’s deficit.

But with Clinton it’s true:) Ok, maybe not entirely, but back when you were listening to Limbaugh he was part of a concerted effort to bring the President down by any means necessary. This is well-documented.

No, Obama didn’t rape anyone, he was just born in Kenya and thus ineligible to be President. Plus, I heard he was a closet Muslim and we all know that all Muslims are terrorists. That is to say, he got attacked by the rightwing smear machine for other things, but the pattern and motives are the same. I don’t know if there is a similar book regarding Obama, but you should read The Hunting of the President by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons for a comprehensive look at how Clinton was targeted.

Well, okay…..so why did McConnell go that route instead of finding a woman to accuse Obama of improper sexual behavior? Look what that did to Clinton. Clinton was impeached! Are you telling me that McConnell went soft on Obama?

Yes, Clinton was impeached – for telling little white lies under oath in answer to questions that never should have been asked. Clinton being impeached only proves the power of the vast rightwing conspiracy when Republicans were in the majority. It says nothing about the merits of the accusations.